ABC freezes out debate

Piers Akerman

–,
Saturday,
July,
14,
2007,(10:55pm)

THE ABC is to be congratulated for airing the Great Global Warming Swindle, but needs a swift kick for running its phoney debate.

The experts had as much plausibility as the self-acclaimed climate expert Tim Flannery, who holds no climatology credentials, and host Tony Jones made a mockery of the notion of an independent interlocutor.

There was all sizzle, no sausage. When attempts were made to question the science presented, either by members of the audience, or some on the panel, they were cut off.

Anyone hoping for some insights into the most hyped scientific bandwagon since the non-existent Y2K bug would have been sorely disappointed.

Jones, who might have been expected to produce something newsworthy from his interview with documentary maker Martin Durkin, could do no more than present a series of sneering adhominem attacks, as did the ABC’s science show host Robyn Williams.

The other Robin Williams, the professional Hollywood clown, could not have been funnier if he had been trying to be absurd.

Not that there was a lack of material with which to work, far from it. Former US vice president Al Gore’s original documentary had serious holes in it, but these were ignored.

“Your’’ ABC has a position on the climate change question, just as it does on so many other issues and it will not brook legitimate questions from those who may query that view.

Those viewers not already polarised by the debate might have liked a real scientist to explain why Argentines were last week shivering as Buenos Aires endured its first major snowfall since 1918.

The snow followed a cold snap two months ago, which brought sub-freezing temperatures to the capital, causing the deaths of 23 through exposure and bringing on an energy crisis.

It was no more an extreme weather event brought on by global warming than was Hurricane Katrina, though some over-heated enthusiasts, such as Flannery, tried to blame the killer hurricane on human contributions to carbon dioxide levels.

Nor were the below-average temperatures experienced in Sydney over the last weeks put into any sort of perspective.

The global pessimists seize on any temperature variation that suits their argument, but reject any that might expose their claims.

They are in the business of fear - from six-metre sea-level rises to the end of the Great Barrier Reef.

The problem is the constant discovery of new theories that dispute the claims made by the scaremongers.

One such unhelpful note was sounded by researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, who have found that the threat to the Great Barrier Reef’s corals may have been exaggerated.

As this column noted previously, the biggest cause of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in recent times was a deluge of fresh water, which inundated a reef during a period of low tide.

Now the researchers say they have found that many of the corals contain microscopic algae that protect them from temperature fluctuations.

This will disappoint those, including Nicholas Stern, the author of the eponymous apocalyptic report, who have been using the sure demise of the reef as an emotional lever.

What we do know is that the Earth has been hotter and colder that it is today, without any man-made carbon dioxide emissions contributing to the equation, and despite Jones’ and Williams’ attempts to deny it, there has been correlation between sunspot activity and the global temperature.

It is also claimed by some scientists that Earth may actually be entering a period of global cooling, not warming, right now.

We just don’t know enough about the science to make that determination right now.

Rational minds would encourage further research, but the irrational have already made their minds up and are determined to close down debate.

This is not science, it is schlock journalism and the ABC should be ashamed of its role in promoting such pseudo-scientific discourse in prime time.

It is equally disappointing, though not unexpected, that the Australian Greens and the ALP are equally close-minded on the issue, when there is an abundance of evidence available to support a vast range of theories.

Have Your Say

I to watched Martin Durkinâ€™s documentary last Thursday and I was surprised at the ease that Tony Jones exposed Durkin as the fraud that he is. Surely Piers you must have also seen the ridiculous flaws in the science he produced. Iâ€™m only a lay person as no doubt you are when it comes to the science of climate change. However, one would have thought that Durkin would ensure that his film had at the very least current facts and charts that could not be in dispute. You are entitled to be a sceptic, as all of us but please do not insult you readerâ€™s intelligence by supporting this rubbish film from Martin Durkin.

Dunno if you watched the show, but the audience was a laughing stock. Everthing from lyndon larouche to eugenics to some bizarre connection between kepler and carbon 14. “ad hominem”? Yeah, right. Just a little problem with a 25-year-old graph that was bit, well, conveniently rubbish. That was the guts of jones’ “ad hominem” attack. Sorry - but this little editorials only going to cut ice with people who didn’t actually watch the show. I, for one, was quite impressed with the production values - the use of incidental music was excellent.

Meanwhile, there’s a bit of scuttlebutt going about that tony jones was “leant on” by an ABC board member to back off on mr. durkin. You know anything about that?

Meanwhile, I think I’ve worked you out…

Back in the 30’s, the soviets used to let isvestia and pravda publish “letters to stalin”, without retribution. They’d worked out that their own domestic intelligence was rubbish, and the best way to find out what the population was thinking was to run a legitimate letters-to-the-editor page. This whole blog is a troll, isn’t it? You’re a kite.

Sorry. I just don’t believe that someone who can clearly read books believes half of the rubbish you publish. You’re on the take

Good Morning Piers,The trick was just to watch the documentary.When the ABC announced that it was screening Great Global Warming Swindle,I thought then this sounds to good to be true,the diehards in the ABC wont allow this to happen without putting in their two cents worth. When I saw Jones talking about the circus that was to follow the show,I realised my earlier suspicion was correct.The bias in the ABC is appalling and sadly SBS is fast becoming the same.

Can’t agree more Piers. WHo is the Williams creature anyway and what makes him such an expert? Just another jumped-up, thin-lipped POM who was given ‘airtime’ during Whitlam’s left-aligning of the ABC. SUggest he get back to the MOnty Python Circus where, I understand, he commenced his so-called media career!

Piers AkermanSun 15 Jul 07 (01:19pm)

Piers,

Well written and agree with you completely on this issue. Tony Jones performance was like watching the Spanish Inquisition berate a religious heretic. Anyone who opposes the global warming thesis are presumed dangerous and therefore must be discredited and attacked as a fraud. BTW I had to look up “adhominem” and according to Dictionary.com is spelt “ad hominem” - thought you would like to know.

The ABC should have mentioned along with their “opinion” that large sections were cut from the original documentary shown on the UK’s channel four, that version ran for 90 minutes, without the dreadful “debate”. Where did that studio audiance come from? and just why did Robyn Williams have to wear that self satisfied arrogant smirk throughout the debate?

Dissapointed is right Piers. I , along with many others on the blogosphere, predicted “our” ABC would pull some stunt like this(airing programs discrediting the GWS immediately before or after). In fact, after waiting in anticipation for weeks, I basically made up mind to change channels as soon as Tony Jones began his introduction by sneering at how the GWS was made. I have sinced watched the replay and found the GWS to be the most rational documentary I have seen on global war..., I mean global cool...., i mean climate change.

Hang on Piers, let me see if I get the logic of your piece right? The ABC let’ Durking run his hysterical claims of ‘lies, swindles and conspiracy’ uninterrupted for an hour, thats’s the ABC shutting down debate?

When, in a 15 minute interview, Tony Jones exposes Durkin’s fraudlent use of selective, incomplete and inaccurate claims, that’s Jones being guilty of ‘sneering adhominem attacks’ rather than doing his job as a questioning journalist. Apparently he’s meant to just congratulate Durkin for his deceptions.

And when the ABC gathers the leading scientific sceptics- Carter and Evans -and allows them to discuss the ‘Swindle’ with other well-credentialled experts with alternate views then that’s the ABC not ‘brooking legitimate questions.’

And when Robyn Williams brings his 35 years of experence to the debate (rather than your 5 minutes) that’s him sneering and (once again, yawn) being compared to the eponymous American actor. That’s the best you can do, really?

Your rant about some recent local weather events just shows how little you understand about climate-- they are not interchangeable terms peirs, though it may come as a surprise to you.
And as for the ABC promoting ‘pseudo-scientific discourse’ I think we can be confident who most people would ascribe that label to: would it be Martin Durkin or the science supported by virtually every major Scientific Academy or leading institution on the planet? Take a look at the Royal Society’s response to the film-- and respond with facts to it, not bluster

You see, if you are right, then all science is a fraud and a conspiracy. According to you, there is nothing we can ever believe.

Tell me Piers, when you run the ABC, how would you handle the screening of a film as contenscious, tendentious and decieftful as ‘Swindle’? In your mind, the ABC is dammed if it does, and dammed if it don’t.

Clearly you didn’t learn anything from the screening. Those of us with a less ideological point of view learnt an awful lot.

I defy anyone of reasonable intelligence to watch Leigh Sales follow up interview with Carl Wunsch on Lateline and conclude that it’s the climate scientists who are frauds and not Durkin. It beggars belief that the newspaper is paying you for your expertise Piers when you such low grade analytical skills. A lifetime of journlistic practise and you come up with garbage like this. Imagine if you were a doctor or an architect? The carnage wouldn’t be pretty.

Balance from Their ABC? Impartiality from Their ABC? Good grief man, does your optimism know no bounds? The plonkers in that journalistic graveyard know as much about what the ethics of a publicly funded broadcaster should be as I do about the workings of the female mind - and that ain’t a lot. Their ABC with its tired old “Conservative bad - Everything else good.” code of practice and its comical defenders, the Friends of the ABC, are about as relevant today as they were yesterday - and that also ain’t a lot. I begrudge every one of my whatever cents a day that is squandered in keeping this monument to the 60s alive.

I’m appalled at some of the attacks you’re receiving here, Piers. Clear evidence of the severe brainwashing this topic has caused. I don’t always agree with you but I aways respect your rational approach to subjects of this nature.
Clearly, some of the commenters here are making a buck out of ‘Global Warming’!!! hysteria.

I have to wonder why these radicals appose the desalination plant when sea level rises are at 6 metres? Do they ever wonder why mother nature made most of the earth water? Perhaps so we would have plenty to use once we worked out the science of it all? I can’t believe so many people have been brainwashed by this nonsense. It’s definitely an industry and if the truth were exposed those that are pushing this propaganda have much to lose financially.
It’s on a par with radical religious views. A way to exert power and control via mass hysteria.

Susan of Newport is right. At least 20 minutes to half hour had been edited from the original documentary. I’ve seen it all and can understand why as the parts that were missing are easily the most persuasive to the alterative view. I strongly encourage everyone to search the net for a copy of the original version.
We all finance the ABC & deserve an apology.

Piers, you are wilfully ignoring the thrust of the interview â€” that Durkin’s claims are based dodgy graphs and selective facts.

The ABC showed both sides of the story, you characterise that as bias just because your team couldn’t mount an argument in the face of the facts? Your accusations don’t cover the fact that the sceptics and denialists wilted when give the much cried-after ‘balance’.

The arguments for AGW is so strong and convincing that anyone arguing AGW isn’t happening now must be in the pay of the fossil-fuel lobby. or logic-challenged

Unfortunately the ABC is becoming more cocky by the day as it becomes apparent to them that their man is going to beat Howard. The likes of Barry Cassidy (former staffer for Hawke), Tony Jones and Virginia Trioli are all privately biting at the chump to find a safe seat for them to occupy in Canberra. Trioli’s interview with a farmer the other day on ABC National was hilarious. She was trying to get this down-to-earth Aussie farmer battle to agree with her that Rudd’s populist stance on grocery prices was a fantastic idea. She was virtually begging him to consent to the ABC view. He relented of course as would any unbiased person. ABC Insiders is a good program as is Radio National, however it is appalling to know in every interview they do, who they are barracking for.

Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide a name, you may use a screen name – this will be published with your comment, and a working email address – not for publication, but for verification. The suburb/location field is optional.
( Read our publication guidelines ).

Profile

Piers Akerman

Piers has been one of The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph's best-read columnists since 1993. One of the nation's most respected journalists he has worked in New York, London, Washington and Los Angeles. He lives in Sydney with his wife and two daughters and enjoys a wide range of activities.